Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the thermal insulation means, the dispenser means and the condensation and recovery means must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “substantially hermetic” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially hermetic” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what level of sealing is being claimed.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "said first and second flow control elements" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “associated with said body substantially” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “associated with said body substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what level or type of structural association is being claimed.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "said first flow control element" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "said first flow control element" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "said first actuation means" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "said second flow control element" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "said second flow control element" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "said second actuation means" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein treatment chamber” in line 1. It is unclear whether or not this is in reference to the “treatment chamber” of claim 13 on which claim 20 depends. For examination purposes it has been assumed that the limitation reads: “wherein the treatment chamber”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13-15, 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scheper et al. (US20050183208).
Regarding claims 13, 22-24, Scheper et al. teaches a fabric processing machine (see abstract) comprising a body 2 delimiting at least one treatment chamber (see space inside body 2, as shown in figures 1-2) (see figure 1, paragraphs [0059]-[0063]); said treatment chamber being accessible from the outside environment through at least one loading/unloading opening 58 (see figure 2, paragraphs [0061]-[0064]); said opening 58 having a door 59 (see figure 2, paragraph [0062]); said machine wherein said treatment chamber forms a controlled-atmosphere environment containing items to be treated (see paragraphs [0103], [0105], [0106], [0111], [0124]); said treatment chamber being insulated from the outside environment (see figure 2, paragraph [0062], see gas-tight sealing from external environment) (reads on claim 13); a dispenser means 26 capable of dosing water and/or chemical products inside said treatment chamber (reads on claim 22) (see paragraphs [0067], [0069], figures 1-2); a condensation and recovery means 36 capable of condensing and recovering the vapors that are released in said treatment chamber (reads on claim 23) (see figure 1, paragraph [0097]); a rotating drum 1 arranged inside said treatment chamber (reads on claim 24) (see figures 1-2, paragraphs [0061]-[0065]).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Scheper et al. teaches the limitations of claim 13. Scheper et al. also teaches in figures 1-2, paragraphs [0069], [0070], [0080], [0082], [0084], [0085], [0090], [0101], [0104], [0111] said treatment chamber comprises at least one air intake opening (see e.g. openings in 2 associated with pipes 25, 34, 7, 35, as shown in figure 1, which are all capable of permitting inward flow of air) and at least one air discharge opening (see e.g. openings in associated with pipes 25, 34, 7, 35, as shown in figure 1, which are all capable of permitting outward flow of air); said air intake and discharge openings respectively having a first flow control element 23/17/12/5/40 and a second flow control element 23/17/12/5/40 that are movable on command (see paragraphs [0090], [0104]) between at least one open position and at least one closed position, wherein they respectively allow or prevent a flow of air through said treatment chamber (reads on claim 14); the treatment chamber being hermetic with respect to the outside environment when said first and second flow control elements 23/17/12/5/40 are in the closed position and said loading/unloading opening 58 is closed by said door 59 (see figures 1-2, paragraph [0062]) (reads on claim 15).
Regarding claim 20, Scheper et al. teaches the limitations of claim 13. Scheper et al. also teaches in figure 2, paragraph [0062] that the treatment chamber comprises a thermal insulation means 55 capable of thermally insulating said controlled-atmosphere environment from the outside environment.
Regarding claim 21, Scheper et al. teaches the limitations of claim 13. Scheper et al. also teaches in figures 1-2, paragraphs [0103], [0105], [0106], [0111], [0124], [0149] a temperature and humidity control means 81 controlling the internal temperature of said treatment chamber and the internal humidity of said treatment chamber.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheper et al. (US20050183208) as applied to claim 13 and further in view of Bobed et al. (ES2378921A1).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Scheper et al. teaches the limitations of claim 13. Scheper et al. teaches in paragraph [0090] that closure elements of the first and second flow control elements 23/17/12/5/40 may be movable between open and closed positions by means of first and second actuation means. Scheper et al. does not teach that the first and second flow control elements comprise first and second closure doors hinged at one end of said body, at air intake and discharge openings, respectively. Bobed et al. teaches a fabric treating apparatus (see abstract) and that a closure door 62, 64, 68 may be hinged at one end of body 30 at an opening thereof, thereby allowing for an effective air-tight seal (see abstract, page 5 of the translation, figures 1-5, 7). Since both Scheper et al. and Bobed et al. teach fabric treating apparatuses it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the first and second flow control elements in the system by Scheper et al. may comprise first and second closure doors hinged at one end of said body, at air intake and discharge openings, respectively, so as to allow for effective air-tight seals, as shown to be known and conventional by Bobed et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Scheper et al. (US20050183208). Scheper et al. fails to teach/disclose all of the limitations of claims 16 and 18. Furthermore, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part along with the requisite motivation to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL BARR can be reached at 571-272-1414. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights